The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors is about to change our wireless ordinance, removing important protections. Please take action!
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on this proposed wireless ordinance on Feb 4th, 2025. We want the BOS to Vote NO on the wireless ordinance amendments and SB 9, and direct the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission to do collaborative workshops with Safe Technology for Santa Barbara County (SafeTechSBC) and their experts and attorney/s.
Issues:
• Zero setbacks for “small cell” antennas
• No notice, no hearing, no way to oppose, no appeal
• No exemptions for coastal or environmental review (CEQA)
More issues in sample letter below.
Dec. 4th, 2024, the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission presented proposed wireless ordinance amendments and cross-outs. The five county planning commissioners voted unanimously for the proposed wireless ordinance amendments, in a combined vote with CA Senate Bill 9 (SB 9). This will be on the County Supervisor’s agenda, February 4, 2025 when Santa Barbara County Supervisors will vote on the Wireless Ordinance and SB 9.
In this new county wireless ordinance, notification and ability to oppose were taken away, including but not limited to the opportunity to be notified, attend hearings, oppose and appeal “so called” small wireless facilities. Also, the planning commission proposed zero setbacks, exemptions for environmental, CEQA and coastal permit hearings.
There is no attention to decreased property values, no fire protections or emergency shut-offs, no monitoring of radiation, no inspections, no insurance for harm or death, no allowance for disability, no protection for the environment, health and public safety, no attention to fire risks, etc. In addition, with unregulated, “ministerial” aka rubber stamped wireless facility applications and permits, the proliferation of cell towers will cause a huge increase of greenhouse gases and the digital waste-stream, which reverses the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisor’s (BOS) multiple proclamations to reduce greenhouse gases and the climate crisis.
We have very little time to inform the public, organize and be heard by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, since the County Planning Commission is rushing this through during the holidays, without allowing ample time for a public review.
ACTION ITEM
Send written comments and make public voice comments to the BOS that we want changes in the ordinance to make it more protective and to have collaborative workshops with our experts.
https://www.countyofsb.org/1599/Board-of-Supervisors
See background info and sample letter below: “Sample Public Comments for BOS 12-22-2024”
Please DONATE HERE to support the Safe Tech Santa Barbara initiative of the Broadband International Legal Action Network (BBILAN – a 501.c.3 non-profit tax-exempt organization) in its efforts to protect Santa Barbara County.
Note: Special 30 day bonus offer from BBILAN for donations of $100 or more. Contact BBILAN for more info: info@bbilan.org
Join our email list. Contact: SafeTechSBC@gmail.com for above items and more information.
Join our Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/SafeTechSBC/
References:
https://envirotecmagazine.com/2021/11/08/how-green-is-5g/
https://mdsafetech.org/2019/09/28/firefighters-fighting-fires-and-now-cell-towers/
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1062696679001/2
Background info and sample letter:
December 22, 2024
Dear Supervisor ___________________:
I urge you to vote NO on February 4, 2025, on the county wireless ordinance amendments, pending a well advertised public review and meetings with concerned residents and the Safe Technology for Santa Barbara group and their attorneys. Please do not rush this through!
Please support a well advertised, unrushed public comment period, to give your residents the opportunity to have input and to meet with experts, who do not have conflicts of interest with the telecom industry.
The independent experts can present what we believe are legal and necessary protections, not currently in the ordinance. The public must be given the time and opportunity to respond to ALL, proposed cell towers, be notified, have the ability to participate in hearings, oppose and appeal, regardless of facility’s tier, size or design.
Putting this wireless ordinance on the February 4, 2025 County Board of Supervisors agenda is premature. Please vote NO or take this off the February 4th agenda and wait until this ordinance has responsible and necessary protections.
SB 9 and the wireless ordinance should not be combined in one vote! This makes no sense, since they are not related to each other. Please vote NO on SB 9, since it does not promote affordable housing and the Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin issued a landmark ruling on April 26, 2024, striking down the controversial SB 9, as unconstitutional. Please vote no or postpone your vote until final decisions are completed based on this court ruling. Otherwise, building permits will be canceled.
Unfortunately, SB 9 exempts these projects from CEQA and coastal permit hearings. When the county wireless ordinance is attached to SB 9, this further deregulates and erodes the little control we have left to stop unnecessary and irresponsible placement of cell towers and follow environmental protection laws.
It’s important that you and the Board of Supervisors vote for most protective codes and best practices to protect us from the irresponsible placement of cell towers. Your hands are not tied!
Before voting on the City of Santa Barbara’s Wireless Ordinance updates in 2021, the City Council members, city attorneys and staff set up a long public comment period, welcomed meetings with Safe Technology for Santa Barbara County’s experts and attorneys and included some of their attorneys recommendations in their ordinance. Their city attorneys thanked them for their interest, ideas and commitment to improve the ordinance. We ask the same of the County BOS, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Boards, County Attorneys and Planning Director.
Site developers often mislead local governments to believe that they have little or no authority to regulate the placement of wireless facilities. Applicants submit patently false or misleading information to local zoning boards, and install wireless facilities without approvals and permits, complete stealth installations under cover of darkness or when the owners and nearby occupants are not home or asleep, and lie to local property owners and neighbors as to their intent, and regarding the placement and size of the facilities.
We need telecom facilities to be well regulated to reduce green house gases, protect our property and property values, and for health and environmental safety. Please do not take away any regulations on these telecom ordinances! https://envirotecmagazine.com/2021/11/08/how-green-is-5g/
Do not exempt cell towers and antenna expansions from CEQA, environmental and NEPA review.
Require the wireless companies to provide liability insurance for harm and death.
Cell towers are not insured. Lloyds of London and all insurers have excluded all Radio Frequency radiation related illness. Ask Verizon for proof of insurance. The truth is, they are uninsurable. Telecom should definitely not be exempt from electrical and fire codes at the federal, the state, and the county levels!
Require licensed electricians or licensed engineers to supervise and/or build wireless installations, which is not currently happening.
Require monitoring of RF radiation for all wireless facilities, by independent experts.
Adopt the best parts of ordinances ie Malibu, Encinitas, Petaluma, Mill Valley, Palo Alto, Sebastopol, Sonoma, Oakland and Santa Rosa, especially Malibu.
Restore local government discretion on antenna location, so property owners can cooperate with authorities to zone cell towers far from bedrooms, classrooms and parks. Prioritize WIRED broadband connection, which polls show two-third of Americans prefer.
Wireless facilities should not be installed adjacent to homes. Another provision that could be easily applied to your county ordinance, that was also suggested by a Santa Barbara city council member is to adopt the “Front Yard Rule”. It works well in Elk Grove and says: “No small cell wireless communication facility shall be located immediately adjacent to, nor immediately across the street from, a front yard of any residential dwelling.”
Require compensation for lowered property values, independent monitoring of radiation and regulations to prevent fire risk. See: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_i5Q7r8dg14OCW1MLo0yR6bf3ppv1Q2B/vie
Do not encourage stealth and concealment. Require the cell towers to be visible and mapped. Cell towers are for cell phone calls and texts and not necessary for broadband, which is internet. Macro towers, distant from residential zones are best.
WIRED INTERNET should be affordable and accessible to all! It is faster, more secure, safer, has less fire risk and is far less polluting.
Thousands of people like me oppose installations of unneeded, overpowered cell towers, often without proper notification to occupants and without proof of a significant gap in cell phone service. We need more local authority over cell towers, not less. Do not give a free pass to the telecom industry at the expense of our property values, fire risks, privacy, carbon footprint, health, safety, and the quiet enjoyment of our streets. Wired broadband, which is faster, more reliable, and more secure, NOT wireless broadband, should be accessible and affordable to everyone in their homes, schools and businesses.
We advocate for Fiber to the Premises, aka cable, aka wired internet or wired broadband. It is only in the interest of the billion dollar wireless industry to deploy wireless facilities on utility poles, street light poles and traffic signal poles. This will NOT close the digital divide.
Wireless networks consume more energy than wired networks. Property values near small cells and antennas are declining. Small wireless facilities increase the risk of fires. Telecom corporations cannot get insurance for health claims resulting from radiofrequency radiation (RFR) pollution. Government research proves that exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) causes cancer. Wireless networks are more easily hacked. There’s already a much better, safer, faster, more reliable, and more affordable solution for broadband connectivity — (wired) Fiber-Optics to the Premises.
California continues drought years which sets us up for even more severe deadly wildfire seasons.
California has suffered devastating fire losses due to telecom equipment. Construction of small cells even closer to homes and businesses will increase risk of fires. Yet, no wireless carrier or their agents can get liability insurance for claims of injury, death or illness. For over a decade, Lloyd’s of London and other insurers have instituted Pollution Exclusions for RF-EMR/EMF exposures. Wireless telecommunication facilities are uninsurable. Fires have cost California Billions of dollars (not to mention displacement, suffering and death). In addition, thousands of scientific studies show radio frequency microwave radiation has been proven harmful to humans, plants, animals and the environment.
5G equipment will block disability access in our Public Rights of Way and in affected public buildings, which is morally and legally unacceptable and will prompt lawsuits. SB-556 violates the ADA, American Disability Act.
This is Fire information from Susan Foster 2021:
“1) The Malibu Fire was caused by an overloaded utility pole in 2007. ” Malibu Canyon Fire (2007); 4 carriers including AT&T, Verizon & Sprint (T-Mobile) overloaded an SCE utility pole and it snapped in the wind, sparking a fire in the dry grass below. All 4 carriers plus the utility were accused by the CPUC of attempting to mislead investigators.
2) Woolsey Fire (2018); there were two ignition points and the Woolsey Fire is currently under criminal investigation so we do not have access to most of the details. We know that a telecommunications lashing wire was the cause of at least one ignition point; we know the second ignition point was directly underneath that lashing wire. We simply do not know which telecom carrier was involved. Woolsey consumed half the homes (over 400) in Malibu and has changed that city forever. Many of those homes have not been rebuilt because of permitting issues and financial ruin. Insurance is dropping a number of people in the high risk fire areas. Many people do not know that Woolsey was a $6 billion fire. It started the same day as the Camp Fire which burned Paradise and killed 84 people. Because of the massive loss of life in Paradise, the Camp Fire overshadowed the Woolsey Fire, but Woolsey was completely devastating. In the Woolsey Fire we know the utility SCE was involved but it was a telecom lashing wire that appears to have triggered the fire at the site of an SCE power pole – these lashing wires connect telecom fiber to the big utility poles; when they are not done correctly, they can come loose and fire is often the result. This was likely the result of improper engineering, faulty equipment, or faulty installation. Telecom is doing slipshod work and we are paying the price.
3) Silverado Fire (2020). This fire was caused by a telecom lashing wire that came loose and forced the evacuation of over 130,000 people.
We are finding design and engineering flaws in almost every application for cell towers that our electrical engineer is reviewing. They are all approved by the cities. We have done something different in Malibu and required engineering rigor upfront at the application stage. When a telecommunications lashing wire comes loose, it is telecom’s fault because these lashing wires may have been installed improperly, the wrong equipment may have been used, and the equipment may not be changed/updated on a timely basis. City council members may not realize that fiber is needed for 5G to operate & the fiber is not all underground; much of it is strung from utility pole to utility pole with lashing wires. So it’s all part of the same system.
We know 5G small cells have spontaneously caught on fire but we don’t have data on these fires because 5G is too new. But 5G is no different than 2G, 3G, 4G when it comes to fire risks. In fact the risks are greater because the cellular equipment has been brought closer to our homes. 2G – 5G are all electrical devices and every one of them is going to fail. If they are not engineered properly, fire is often the result of this failure.
By building this infrastructure so close to people’s homes, there is no time left for escape. All cellular fires are electrical fires. Electrical fires cannot be fought until the power has been cut by the utility and that takes between 10 and 60 minutes. Every family needs time to escape and to have a 5G small cell on a stop sign at the corner of somebody’s yard shows a reckless disregard for human life and safety.
After thorough research of the codes in California, we found that telecom was exempt from most electrical and fire codes at the federal, the state, and the county levels. Thus telecom has been policing telecom from the very beginning.”
It is important to retain CEQA and coastal permit requirements and hearings. We want protective codes and responsible, safe and professional standards for applications and building permits, especially for wireless telecom facilities, which come with a multitude of risks, including fire, 20% decreased property values, environmental harm, compromised aesthetics, false information on wireless facility applications, lack of insurance for harm and death, no oversight of installations by licensed engineers or electricians, no proof of significant gap in coverage, including hard data of six months of dropped calls, no provision of independent data, high risk of falsified data on the cumulative amount radio-frequency radiation from their proposed cell towers, no monitoring, outdated radiation exposure standards.
There is currently no monitoring of cell towers, so we have no idea if the radiation exceeds the FCC’s outdated and obsolete exposure limits. Neither the FCC, carriers or installers will be monitoring. Who will be liable for biological harm?
Restore local government discretion on antenna location, so property owners can cooperate with authorities to zone cell towers far from bedrooms, classrooms and parks. Prioritize WIRED broadband connection, which polls show two-third of Americans prefer. It’s bad for us, it’s bad for the environment. It will not help close the digital divide.
People with health risks, especially children, elderly and pregnant women will be harmed, by 24/7 radiation exposure. Are you and the county willing to take responsibility for lawsuits?
Acknowledge the medical diagnostic codes for Elecrtro Magnetic Sensitivity (EMS) and facilitate and support people with disability needs and claims.
Make sure that the applicants must provide you with proof of significant gap in coverage, including hard data of six months of dropped calls? Have they provided independent data, (without the risk of falsified data) on the cumulative amount radio-frequency radiation from their proposed cell towers? How many carriers will be colocated on these installations? Who will monitor their output? There is currently no monitoring of cell towers, so we have no idea if the radiation exceeds the FCC’s outdated and obsolete exposure limits. Neither the FCC, carriers or installers will be monitoring. Who will be liable for biological harm?
Fire stations were given an exemption in this bill from cell tower installations. Why? Because the National Fire Fighters Association have been fighting cell antennas on their stations for the last 20 years, due to the harms firefighters were experiencing from working and sleeping in proximity to these antennas: brain fog, loss of cognitive function, insomnia, unexplained rage, anxiety, etc. Spect Scan studies of CA fire fighters showed injury and inflammation in the brains of all the fire fighters studied. Our fire fighters are the most fit among us. What about the folks who work or inhabit the homes or buildings adjacent to these installations? *
Please add requirement of true proven gap in cell phone service. You have the authority to make determinations on the best locations for cell towers and to deny unneeded and irresponsible placement of towers.
Please revise the wireless code so that you have codified grounds for denial based on requirements including set backs, height requirements, restrictions in residential zones, proper notification, NEPA reviews, etc. We are happy to share the expertly written, legal, comprehensive information needed to have a protective wireless county code.
The wireless industry is the biggest lobby in the US now, surpassing the pharmaceutical industry.
“Fiber or coaxial cable to the premises for WIRED broadband is much faster, safer, more secure/less hackable and much less polluting in contrast to WIRELESS broadband. 5G requires excessive and unnecessary cell towers that increase our fire risks, harm the environment and lower property values by 20%. 5G is about mining your personal data and increasing wireless industry profits by billions of dollars. It requires you to buy more expensive devices and has a huge carbon and waste footprint. There are 41 symptoms that people can get from exposure to wireless, microwave radiation. Firefighters (including firefighters in our neighborhood) reported neurological damage after cell tower installation near their stations:
https://www.smart-safe.com/blogs/news/watch-firefighters-report-neurological-damage-after-cell-tower-installation-near-their-station
On August 16th, 2021, the FCC, by was remanded by United States Court of Appeals. The court ordered the FCC to explain why it ignored scientific evidence showing harm from wireless radiation. Given the remand, it is irresponsible for us to proceed with laws and codes that will facilitate the installation of wireless infrastructure until NEW FCC Emission Safety Guidelines based on science have been established. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the historic case EHT et al. v. the FCC that the December 2019 decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to retain its 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was “arbitrary and capricious.”
This is a very good reason to strengthen our county telecom code.
Do you really want a cell tower in your front yard?
Do you want your property values to go down 20-30 % and lower the local tax base?
The County Code as it stands has no teeth to stop the roll-out of 5G small cell wireless infrastructure within feet of residents home. The officials who are charged to review small cell applications hands are tied, not by the FCC, but by our own codes abdication of establishing grounds of denial for these applications. Our officials reviewing applications can only deny these applications if we state grounds for denial upfront in our County Code and provide adequate training. Hire an attorney with no conflict of interest with wireless industry to educate the planners, revise the county ordinance and adopt the best parts of the ordinances ie Malibu, Encinitas, Petaluma, Mill Valley, Palo Alto, Sebastopol, Sonoma, Oakland and Santa Rosa.
The 5G antenna roll out will lower property values and harm nearby businesses, (US Association of Realtors research). This will lower the local government tax base.
We oppose installations of unneeded, overpowered cell towers, often without proper notification to occupants and without proof of a significant gap in cell phone service. We need more local authority over cell towers, not less. Do not give a free pass to the telecom industry at the expense of our property values, fire risks, privacy, carbon footprint, health, safety, and the quiet enjoyment of our streets. Wired broadband, which is faster, more reliable, and more secure, NOT wireless broadband, should be accessible and affordable to everyone in their homes, schools and businesses. We advocate for Fiber to the Premises, aka cable, aka wired internet or wired broadband. It is only in the interest of the billion dollar wireless industry to deploy wireless facilities on utility poles, street light poles and traffic signal poles. This will close the digital divide.
This the worst fire season in history and these amendments fail to address wildfire safety linked to poor antenna construction which has previously resulted in property damage, personal injury and devastating fires
We oppose installations of unneeded, overpowered cell towers, often without proper notification to occupants and without proof of a significant gap in cell phone service. We need more local authority over cell towers, not less. Do not give a free pass to the telecom industry at the expense of our property values, fire risks, privacy, carbon footprint, health, safety, and the quiet enjoyment of our streets. Wired broadband, which is faster, more reliable, and more secure, NOT wireless broadband, should be accessible and affordable to everyone in their homes, schools and businesses. We advocate for Fiber to the Premises, aka cable, aka wired internet or wired broadband. It is only in the interest of the billion dollar wireless industry to deploy wireless facilities on utility poles, street light poles and traffic signal poles. This will close the digital divide.
What’s that you ask about the environment? Radiation and Electromagnetic Radiation (RFR-EMR) affect flora and fauna and cause biologic harm. Radio frequency fields disrupt insect and bird orientation. There are thousands of articles from peer reviewed studies documenting the biological (human, animal and cell studies) harmful effects of RFR-EMR, including cancer and DNA damage as well as harming flora and fauna. Many studies have been done on birds and bees and plants, certainly more than enough to engage the “precautionary principle” before we allow the proliferation of harmful wireless smog throughout our environment when there is a safer, more energy efficient wired broadband alternative.
- Recently retired US Fish and Wildlife Service wildlife biologist and a former lead on telecommunications impacts, Dr. Albert Manville, has written to the FCC on impacts to birds and higher frequencies to be used in 5G and authored numerous publications detailing research showing harm to birds. Manville has testified about the impacts of cell towers on birds that, “the entire thermal model and all FCC categorical exclusions for all the devices we see today, rests on the incorrect assumption that low-level nonionizing nonthermal radiation cannot cause DNA breaks because it is so low power the evidence to the contrary is clear and growing laboratory animals and wildlife.”
- The NIH National Toxicology Program spent $25M on a highly controlled study on 3G cell phone radiation and reported their findings in 2018 – “clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage in laboratory animals was reported and these findings were replicated in Italy also in 2018.
Restore local government discretion on antenna location, so property owners can cooperate with authorities to zone cell towers far from bedrooms, classrooms and parks. Prioritize WIRED broadband connection, which polls show two-third of Americans prefer.